Re: [pnfs] next-20090406: nfsd build fails

From: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" <androsadamson@gmail•com>
To: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas•com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses•org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp•com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
	linux-nfs@vger•kernel.org, pNFS Mailing List <pnfs@linux-nfs•org>,
	"linux-next@vger•kernel.org" <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [pnfs] next-20090406: nfsd build fails
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:05:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <89c397150904071305y2581a171qa45e4e78fe8ea3aa@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49DBA132.5000703@panasas.com>

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas•com> wrote:
> On Apr. 06, 2009, 20:11 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses•org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:53:28AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>>> On Apr. 06, 2009, 10:27 +0300, Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c: In function 'set_max_drc':
>>>> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:240: error: 'NFSD_DRC_SIZE_SHIFT' undeclared
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_NFSD_V4 is not set
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reporting this!
>>>
>>> Andy, Bruce: please see attached 2 patches fixing compile/link errors
>>> with DRC under !defined(CONFIG_NFSD_V4):
>>>
>>> [PATCH 1/2] SQUASHEM: nfsd41: define NFSD_DRC_SIZE_SHIFT in set_max_drc
>>> [PATCH 2/2] SQUASHME: nfsd41: define nfsd4_set_statp as noop for !CONFIG_NFSD_V4
>>
>> Thanks, applied.
>>
>> Committing on top (not squashing) since I'd rather not rewrite history
>> on a branch I've already sent a pull request for.
>
> Cool. Thanks!
> I wasn't aware that you already sent a pull request already...
> I got it from mainline now and I'm rebasing and testing
> the rest of our stuff on top of it.
>
>>
>> (In fact, I'll try to stop rebasing those for-next branches at all this
>> time around.)
>
> I'm with you on that.
>
> For 2.6.31, I'd like to send easy-to-swallow patch sets
> that we can review and agree upon well ahead of the merge window
> (i.e. start, e.g. with the backchannel stuff shortly after 2.6.30-rc1
> is cut) and once we're in agreement on it we can put it in linux-next
> to be visible to others and get some soak time.

This sounds good to me. I'm continuing with Bruce's review comments WRT the DRC.

> This will also
> be a good time to freeze it, so it won't be rebased, unless something
> important enough requires that.  How does that sound?
>
> I think that the same strategy should work for the client side too.
> Trond what do you think?
>
> Benny
>
>>
>> --b.
> _______________________________________________
> pNFS mailing list
> pNFS@linux-nfs•org
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs
>